Seattle School District No. 1 board weighs adopting new K–5 ELA curriculum amid questions on contract length, Spanish pilot and training

At a special meeting called to order at 4:31 p.m., the Seattle School District No. 1 board reviewed a recommendation to adopt a new kindergarten-through-fifth-grade English language arts curriculum that the district's instructional adoption committee has endorsed.

Board President Toph introduced the item as a districtwide decision that will touch every K5 classroom and carries a significant financial commitment. Mike Storoski, assistant superintendent of academics, told directors the committees recommendation is evidence-based and aligns to the science of reading and to state requirements, and that the process followed board policies 0030 (educational and racial equity) and 2015 (selection and adoption of instructional materials).

"Currently right now for our students, approximately 60% of our students in Seattle Public Schools are at or above grade level in reading in elementary," Storoski said, adding that the district needs to improve those results and that the recommended curriculum embeds teacher supports and progress monitoring.

Directors asked detailed questions about the selection process and implementation. Vice President Briggs said he remained concerned about how new the recommended curriculum is and about the relatively short pilot window; he asked whether the board could delay adoption for another year. Storoski replied that restarting an adoption would effectively set the district back about 18 months and that the people who had invested in the current process would need to repeat that work.

Several directors pressed staff on three practical implementation areas: (1) dual-language supports, (2) how the district can use capital funds to pay for curriculum, and (3) teacher training and fidelity monitoring. On dual-language supports, curriculum staff said the Spanish component, called "Juntos," dovetails with the English materials and that pilot participation would not incur additional fees because publishers often provide pilot resources and professional development at no cost. "Juntos... aligns beautifully with what we're using in K5," one staff member said.

On funding, staff said prior levy and contract planning included language allowing purchase of digital curriculum components with capital funds. That digital component is what enables the district to use capital rather than general fund money in this adoption, staff said. Directors pressed whether that meant young learners would spend significant time on devices; staff repeatedly said early-grade instruction would be primarily hands-on and that the digital adaptive modules would be used in limited small-group, focus time (staff described it as roughly a 20-minute window within the literacy block).

Directors also raised special education and English learner supports. Staff said the recommended curriculum includes structured literacy, embedded supports for multilingual learners and scaffolded vocabulary and routines, and that consumables (student texts/workbooks used for annotation) are part of the package.

On contract length, multiple directors questioned the proposed nine-year adoption period. Staff said seven-to-nine years is common for adoption cycles and that the committee landed on nine years to establish a clear system expectation, but they said contract terms remain negotiable and the board could discuss shorter durations or other contract provisions before action.

Directors asked how the district would ensure the curriculum is taught with fidelity and how implementation would be monitored. Curriculum staff described a three-year professional development plan, embedded teacher coaching and a proposed multi-year research and evaluation partnership to study implementation and support continuous improvement. "We have a 3-year professional development plan that does include standalone science of reading training," staff said, and noted they would monitor uptake and use lessons learned to course-correct.

Several directors pressed transparency and vendor scoring after one curriculum vendor (McGraw Hill) received a lower score in an earlier round; staff said a contradiction in the RFP request led McGraw Hill initially to submit only third-grade samples, which affected early scoring, and that the committee later saw full materials.

Superintendent Scholdner emphasized respect for the committee's work while noting he would provide his views to the board and weigh in at the formal vote next month. "I can say whatever I want, and then you guys can fire me or not," he said, but added that he is not part of the adoption committee's voting process.

The board did not vote at the special meeting. Directors and staff agreed to continue discussion over the coming weeks to resolve outstanding questions about contract length, third-party vetting (staff noted EdReports review was not yet available for the recommended material), multilingual and special education supports, and negotiation options. The item is expected back for a board vote next month.